Gérer les soins de santé et le traitement de la maladie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Pourquoi les systèmes de santé sont-ils si difficiles à gérer? Aucun pays ne semble satisfait de l’état actuel de son système; presque partout les réformes sont considérées, planifiées ou appliquées, certaines en contradiction flagrante avec d’autres. Chaque réforme prétend mieux répondre aux besoins des usagers, et la plupart sont conçues pour soumettre leurs parties constituantes à un contrôle financier. Le «monde» des services de santé connaît depuis longtemps une différenciation en quatre mondes, c’est-à-dire en quatre ensembles d’activités, quatre modes d’organisation, quatre mentalités qui fonctionnent en vase clos. Tant que ces dimensions resteront séparées, rien de fondamental ne changera. Cet article délimite ces quatre mondes, puis il examine les caractéristiques de chacun d’eux, spécialement leur différenciation, et, enfin, il considère certaines relations dynamiques que ces mondes entretiennent entre eux.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".